An employee at a gas station located across the street from the Pentagon servicing military personnel later says the station’s security cameras should have recorded the moment of impact. However, he says, “I’ve never seen what the pictures looked like. The FBI was here within minutes and took the film.” [Richmond Times-Dispatch, 12/11/2001] A security camera atop a hotel close to the Pentagon also records the impact. Hotel employees watch the film several times before the FBI confiscates the video. [Washington Times, 9/21/2001] The Justice Department will refuse to release the footage, claiming that if they did it might provide intelligence to someone who would want to harm the US, but some Pentagon officials say they see no national security value to the video. [CNN, 3/7/2002] The gas station footage and video taken from one nearby hotel, the Doubletree, will eventually be released in 2006, but do not show much (see September 13, 2006-Early December 2006). Reporter Sandra Jontz, who is evacuated from the Pentagon some time after it is hit, notices a Department of Transportation camera that monitors traffic backups pointed towards the crash site. [Bull and Erman, 2002, pp. 281] As of the end of 2006, the footage from this camera has not been released.

While the site is excellent, and I highly recommend it for 9/11 researchers, I do not use the search engine on the site because I find it to be unreliable. Instead I use Google:

His message provides a road map for how to deal with the infiltration, co-option, disruption and disinformation which has been unleashed against the 9/11 truth and justice movements, since those movements have the power to pull the rug out from under the whole fascist enterprise.

This 9/11 truth leader writes:

Allow me to suggest that we don’t need to choose between denunciation, on the one hand, and silence, on the other. That is an unnecessary choice, a false dichotomy.

Denunciation plays into their hands, which is unintended complicity.

Silence is also complicity, as Dr. Martin Luther King pointed out.

Instead of these two approaches, what’s needed is politically relevant education.

Education about agents of all kinds, especially agents provocateurs, their history, who employs them, their tactics.

There is a huge literature on this. We do not need to start at square one. Read about Operation Mockingbird. Read about COINTELPRO. Apply what we learn to today’s situation.

Keep digging, learning, discussing, educating.

This can be done without inflammatory language, without denunciation, without even mentioning names. I mention none here.

When names are mentioned, it should be in connection with observable facts, with evidence. There is a world of difference between saying “A claimed not to know about X, but on [date] he stated “[I know about X],” on the one hand, and saying “A is a liar,” on the other.

Education drains the swamp. Most of agents will stand out. It’s happening already. Other agents are deeper. Understanding their purposes and identifying them and dealing with them depends on more education yet.

Believe me, I come from three generations of the spied-upon and harrassed. Doing nothing plays into their hands. We can’t pretend they don’t exist. Ignoring them will not make them go away.

How will younger people learn about the Agents of Deception unless there’s an ongoing education effort?

“History is a race between education and catastrophe,” wrote H.G. Wells.

One of the aims of the 9/11Truth movement inevitably must be to expose, oppose and work to dismantle the grotesquely huge organizations of spies, agents provocateurs and covert agents of all kinds. They are an insult to democracy and honest discourse.

We cannot gain the peaceful world we want as long as billions are spent on spies and spying – many of those billions on disrupting the lawful activities of us, citizens striving for a safer, saner world. The standard New York Times figure for the budget of “America’s intelligence community” – how homey – is $44-billion. That’s on the books. Add the black budgets and you have a higher figure.

It’s been a long time since spies and spying were a political issue. The Church Committee of the 70’s was the last time the lid was lifted on the creepy crawlies that scuttle about whole countries tricking whole populations.

It’s time we renewed the conversation about the immorality of spies and spying. No doubt largely through their own propaganda efforts, they’ve gone from being pariahs to being heroes, from necessary evils to top dogs, romanticized by the entertainment” industry (although with many honourable exceptions) and uncriticized sacred cows in political circles.

Now that we are experiencing their dirty work on our own doorstep we must educate – with principle, passion, courage and understanding.

I'm not sure how much good one can do by telling others what "the issue" is. Everybody sees things differently, everybody has their own opinions, and by now I think most of us know that in politics, whoever defines "the issue" is gonna win "the debate".

Having established that I can not determine the truth about the signatures due to the contradictory evidence available to us, I have emphasized the clear and case-closed nature of the incivility.

Winter Patriot asks:

If I could, I would… leave them polite comments asking why Tarpley should apologize? Why those who accused Tarpley and Marshall of fraud were never asked to provide evidence supporting their claims, which were lauded immediately as obviously true, even though there was no actual evidence supporting them, and even though they had obviously agreed to corroborate one another before issuing their supposedly definitive "group statement".

The divisiveness surrounding this incident was not an unprecedented event within the 9/11 truth community. A previous "event" involved the divisive breakup of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. In this altercation a prominent leader of the truth movement was accused of ridiculous "hostile takeover" charges. Witnessing the characteristic signs of relentless and vicious ad-hominem attacks and accusations (both online and offline) strongly suggested to me who was telling the truth in this affair early on. There becomes a point where "protesting too much" becomes a reasonable question. But as I have said repeatedly, I can not prove who is telling the truth, so I have focused on the behavior of the Kennebunkport supporters.

If those involved in this controversy are engaging in destructive and divisive behavior, does it really matter who is telling the truth about who did or did not sign a document? In my opinion, the answer is no. Mr. Tarpley should apologize for his behavior if he wishes to regain any semblance of credibility.

In yet another strange twist in the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy, a professional-quality cartoon suggests that Cosmos, Michael Wolsey, Arabesque, and Col. Jenny Sparks work for Chip Berlet and the Ford Foundation. Let's examine this hilarious cartoon, shall we.

First of all, I have spoken out about Mr. Berlet; he has been opposed to 9/11 truth and unanswered questions in the past and some have questioned whether he is credible source of information. We believe his material must be examined carefully and corroborated before acceptance at face value.

In examining the divisive behavior surrounding the Kennebunkport warning, many of those who brought attention to this issue are in turn being accused of divisiveness. In fact, some of Tarpley's supporters have said that we are being "divisive" by even bringing up this issue.

Lately, we have been accused of “CoIntelPro” by Webster Tarpley and his supporters.

First of all, the purpose of CoIntelPro is to weaken activist groups. One of the chief ways of accomplishing this is through divisiveness with accusations (i.e. "you are a CoIntelPro agent"), name calling, and other disruptive behavior. For more discussion, I recommend Michael Wolsey's radio show series on this subject with respected 9/11 researchers Jim Hoffman and John Albanese.

In accusing us of "CoIntelPro", the supporters of the KW are focusing on their primary straw-man argument: "We 'Oppose' the Kennebunkport Warning".

“Who opposes the Kennebunkport warning? We discovered going through this that if you take all the slanderous filth, counter-organizing, disinformation and so forth, about two-thirds of it comes from about half a dozen people as far as I can see." Webster Tarpley, Genesis World Report

“One thing about this that really disturbed me… it’s something that potentially [caused] this antagonism between the truth movement and the anti-war movement, when the whole thing was intended to building bridges. As someone who’s put effort into building bridges—individually, and with groups in the anti-war movement… I just don’t take it well to have these women’s names put on this document, and when they curiously differ, and say no, they signed a different document, and include in their refutation a message of support for 9/11 truth! …and then to have the people promoting this turn and viciously attack them.

Indeed, the promoters of the KW refuse to even acknowledge our actual complaint; that their divisive language serves only to split apart the 9/11 truth movement from the peace movement. Has Tarpley even acknowledged the fact that we are objecting to his divisive behavior? Has he said, "I know this is your problem, but I'm doing it for this reason"? No. He has never acknowledged our criticism. Not once in the month since this controversy erupted has he answered our criticisms, admitted his language is abusive and uncalled for, or apologized. Instead, we have been attacked.

This should end the debate. To refuse to acknowledge the complaint of your opponent and pretend he has a different one is intellectually dishonest at best; it's called a straw-man. Why are you hiding from our real complaint Mr. Tarpley? Is it because you can't explain away your inexplicable behavior? Is it because you can't blame us for calling you out on it?

Why did Tarpley and his supporters do this? As I have responded to one of Tarpley's defenders: I don't have to explain the motive for why Tarpley did what he did. That's his responsibility. All I know is that he hasn't apologized for what he has done, and neither have his associates.

Does pretending a problem does not exist make it go away? Does ignoring a problem because it might cause controversy make things better? Let’s take the example of 9/11. If you saw the evidence 9/11 was an inside job, what good what it do if you did nothing about it? Are you going to say: "I'm not going to deal with this problem because it's going to create too much divisiveness and controversy"? How would that lead to constructive change? Similarly, if your uncle was having financial problems, or was engaging in destructive behavior that impacted your family should you ignore it? If you think that we should ignore problems simply because they are "divisive", why are you reading this blog, why do you care about 9/11 activism, and why do you care about world peace? The first step is acknowledging that there is a problem; the ultimate solution is for the “family” (i.e. the 9/11 truth community) to decide.

Having brought attention to this issue, it is up to the 9/11 truth community to decide how to respond to Mr. Tarpley and his associates.

September 10, 2007

Dear Friends,I want to take this opportunity to thank all of my listeners for the support and words of encouragement I have received. Generous support from listeners makes this broadcast possible and we will continue to work on ways to make the program and the website better in our mission of spreading the truth. My heartfelt gratitude goes out to those who have helped me along the way.

Thanks to some generous donations to the program, I was able to obtain some new equipment and software to produce the program on. The transition between the old and the new has been much more difficult than I had imagined both in terms of getting the new system set up, and learning how to use it. While I expect that this new set up will improve the quality of the program, and decrease the time it takes to produce a program, the learning curve has been much more difficult. You may have noticed that the last few programs are a bit rough around the edges, however, with each program, I learn more about the software and get more efficient.

As I write, the 6th anniversary of the September 11th Attacks is fast approaching. With large truth events scheduled for New York and Washington D.C., there are ample opportunities for all activists to get out and protest the 9-11 cover-up. If you are like me and can’t make it to the east coast, I hope that you will hit the streets in your own area, not only for the 9-11 anniversary, but on the 11th of every month. Each month, more and more activists are joining the 11th Of Every Month Actions, a campaign of Truth Action. You can learn more about this campaign by going to truthaction.org.

September 6, 2007

In late 2006, the movie 9/11 Press For Truth became a worldwide underground hit. It exposed the story of the "Jersey Girls" and their allies -- the 9/11 families who had fought for the Commission but ultimately failed in seeing 70% of their questions answered...

Joel S. Hirschhorn, PhD, former Senior Staff Member of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), called for a new investigation of 9/11. "First, let the technical truth emerge. Then, if necessary, cope with the inevitable political, conspiracy and other questions."

September 4, 2007

First there was "Noble Resolve". Then came the "Kennebunkport Warning". Now we're living through the "End Times"--ahem, I mean "TOPOFF 4"---notice a pattern?

There seem to be interests who want to enable and encourage an "End Times" meme in 9/11 Activism. Captain May's Portland Nuclear Inquest--and, to a lesser extent, Ginny Ross' OTA-- has some of the hallmarks of cult manipulation:

Selected from How Cults Work

-cult leaders will tell you can only be "saved" (or can only be successful) in their organization alone.-Character Assassination-In a mind control cult any information from outside the cult is considered evil, especially if it is opposing the cult. Members are told not to read it or believe it. Only information supplied by the cult is true.-End of world pressure.-Secret knowledge.

Course, as 9/11 activists, our application of the above tools will be wildly different from what Olson conceived. We are not a centralized organization and there is no bureaucracy. And we'll need to go our of our way to liaise with independent 9/11 groups working the CI angle. But our effectiveness has the potential to become exponential once we do. This is of course in addition to all the excellent work already being done. One idea is to make non-public viewable on-line networking groups, focusing on whatever aspect of activism has your interest. Again this is in addition to what you do that is in the public domain. Invite only people you know or can be vouched for. Review these tools, Olson's comments and see what imagination produces.

We're going to play "connect the dots". Whether it's fair or not, we are judged by our allies and supporters. Unless we go out of our way to qualify the relationship, people will make assumptions by association, whether explicit or implicit.

Despite a courteous denial [of signing the Kennebunkport warning], supplying their reasons and wishing those in the 9-11 movement luck, these messages [by anti-war activists] were met with extremely harsh rhetoric coming from the supporters of the KW, led by its author, Webster Tarpley himself...

I have to say that it is more than puzzling to attempt to explain Mr. Tarpley’s behavior toward the alleged signers of the KW.It is completely contrary to his previous statements calling for unity, and goes against his efforts to promote the KW as an important document.I cannot speak for others but I would think a reasonable individual who wanted to promote a certain cause, or in this case, a “document”, would want to avoid controversy. If you really wanted widespread attention for your cause, controversy would be detrimental to your credibility and would turn people off to your message. So why then, did the active supporters of the KW do everything possible to create as much controversy as possible?

May I be the first of many to denounce such behavior from Mr. Tarpley and I demand a public retraction and apology, to myself, and to all whom Mr. Tarpley has attacked, including the ladies in the Peace Movement who want their names removed from the KW.Mr. Tarpley, you also owe the entire movement an apology for such juvenile actions and behaviors...

In closing I will say that what Mr. Tarpley has done to cause the controversy surrounding the KW is nothing short of despicable. Additionally, he has for years promoted some of the worst information regarding the 9-11 cover-up, a fact that seems to either have been ignored, or hidden in plain sight, or both. Today, instead of practicing what he preaches, he simply attacks anyone who might dare stand up to his egomaniacal little tirade against the Peace Activists. I am aware of calls to move past the KW, and yes, I would like nothing better. This has cost me many hours of valuable time that I could have used much better. However, the fact remains that Webster G. Tarpley has behaved in a way that cannot and should not be ignored. In the past, and using the mantra “for the sake of the movement”, it has been the practice to ignore these disruptors. What has ignoring these people done? Have things got better as a result of ignoring them? Have they gone away? On the contrary, like busy little termites, the have been slowly eating away at the foundations of our movement. These outrageous actions by Mr. Tarpley cannot, and will not go unchallenged by me. We as a movement need to come together on how we handle such disruptors and re-evaluate the unwritten, failed policy of ignoring them and hoping they will just go away.

People asked how this could have happened. Then accusations were made, culminating in some ludicrous claims that some of our best leaders were disinformation agents for the government. How can we tell? Because, for example, one wears sunglasses and another has a beard. Brilliant.

Maybe this is just another ego problem, and maybe not. If it is, then it’s another opportunity to better understand that common problem we share. After all, that is the game upon which we are, as a society, being played.

Michael WoolseyA Colorado activist who has worked for years on 9/11truth.Strives for reasoned dialog, strong evidence.Has the courage to discuss COINTELPRO (to understand its workings, not label individuals.)Site: Visibility911.com

CosmosA Bay-Area activist who I met in 2003.Has worked for years for 9/11 truth.Site: TruthAction.org

Visibility 9-11 welcomes peace activist Dr. Dahlia Wasfito discuss her connections to the war in Iraq, her activism against the war, and her views on the 9-11 cover-up. Dr. Wasfi also responds to recent ad hominem attacks aimed at her and other alleged “signers” of the Kennebunkport Warning

After careful review of the conduct and statements made by some individuals responsible for the drafting and promotion of the KW document and subsequent postings of that document on various websites showing various signatures that are NOT approved by the signees; I am withdrawing my support of the KW document and my signature from the list off signees offering such support.

Michael Wolsey of Visibility911.com was the guest on the Sept. 3 edition of Truth Revolution Radio. We discuss his work as a truth activist and radio host, with a special focus on his series on cointelpro. We are also joined by 911blogger's own Col. Jenny Sparks and discuss a bit of the controversy behind The Kennebunkport Warning. Bruce Marshall joins the show during the last segment to discuss his role in promoting The Warning.

"Most of the comments concerning the Kennebunkport Warning have avoided the main issue."

"Adults Are Responsible For What They Sign"

"If you choose that cop-out, what kind of a peace leader are you?"

"They knew exactly what they were signing and, if they deny it, they are unfortunately lying. Anyone who talks of forgery or trickery in gathering these signatures is compounding that lying with slander."

The strange insinuation that the Kennebunkport Warning is the main concern is frequently heard from those pushing it; but it is a deliberate evasion. The main issue is the fact that non-9/11 activists are being attacked. This is a black and white issue that does not require speculation about what did and did not happen.

Yes, "adults are responsible for what they sign," but they are also responsible for what they say. What kind of 9/11 truth "leader" attacks non-9/11 truth activists as "liars" and "wretched individuals"? Certainly not one that I will support.

Webster Tarpley has quite presented us quite the conspiracy theory. Not only did these anti-war activists claim they didn't sign the document--they had the exact same story about what they DID sign--a resolution involving impeachment. Think about that for a minute. Did these signers all decide to join together, deny signing the document, and then come up with the exact same story about what they did sign? This conspiracy theory on its face seems very implausible.

I'll be the first to admit I can't prove that the signatures were faked or forged onto the warning. But, this is not the issue—the issue is one of divisiveness. Who is trying to bring the peace movement together with the 9/11 truth movement and who is trying to divide them? Observations about this are simple and clear.

With five individuals claiming that they did not sign the warning, and providing the exact same story—it is very hard to believe that they are not telling the truth and dismiss their accounts. However, a scanned copy of the signatures has been provided providing yet more intrigue and controversy as it apparently has their names on it. It is not confirmed at this point that the signatures were taken from another document and put onto the Kennebunkport Warning. However, the five corroborated statements can not be ignored.

After the controversy of faked signatures emerged, Webster Tarpley, the supplier of the “massive evidence” outrageously asserted:

"Some of the signers, under the obvious threats of totalitarian forces, are lying in appalling fashionabout what they signed and if they signed. You can see for yourself from the facsimile who signed. We need to move beyond thesewretched individuals.[sic]"

Arabesque: 9/11 Truth

A Blog Devoted to Discussing 9/11 News, Research, and Disinformation

"When we act, we create our own reality"

“The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘That's not the way the world really works anymore… We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.'"

They Said What?

Praise and Disdain for Arabesque: 9/11 Truth

“Arabesque is the best writer in the movement, bar none. Arabesque writes with great clarity on all areas of the 9-11 cover-up, meticulously documenting each point through the use of extensive endnotes. Arabesque has also proven that he isn’t afraid to take on the disinformation specialists who would serve to discredit legitimate questions, research, and evidence which would directly contradict the 'official conspiracy theory' about the events of September 11th, 2001. This, I believe, is one of the most important issues facing the 9-11 movement today.” — Michael Wolsey, Visibility 9-11